|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Bob EagerBob Eager Date: May 31, 2008 22:17
On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:15:44 UTC, "dennis@home"
killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> Which part of someone else drinking harms you?
I've lost count. The last drunk that vandalised my car harmed me
financially.
Several people have been murdered by drunks; they were unlikely to have
done it sober.
I don't like smoking, but the laws are bloody stupid.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 22:20
"Andy Champ" nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RbOdna2QNu1CBtzVnZ2dnUVZ8srinZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>> Where is this pub shelter you use that is open on one side as its illegal
>> and I want to report it.
>> The law states >50%% of the "wall" area being closed is illegal, that
>> would make at least two sides being open to comply.
>>
> OK, so I haven't read the law (it isn't relevant to me) however I don't
> see why Mary has to have a sign saying it isn't legal to smoke, but not
> one saying it isn't legal to take heroin.
>
>>>
>>> ... and anyway, why isn't there a sign on the front door of Number 10
>>> Downing Street?
>>
>> Its a house.
>> Have you got a sign on your house?
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.74Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 22:23
>
>
> dennis@home wrote:
>>> ... and anyway, why isn't there a sign on the front door of Number 10
>>> Downing Street?
>>
>> Its a house.
>> Have you got a sign on your house?
>
> Its a place of business. Brown should be fined immediately.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The second thing is that I think there should have been a licencing
>>> scheme in place to permit smoking in certain enclosed spaces. The
>>> obvious ones are the cigar shops in London that can't let their
>>> customers try the product.
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bob EagerBob Eager Date: May 31, 2008 22:39
On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:16:54 UTC, "Tanner-'op"
i......nvalid.com> wrote:
>> Regardless of TMH's blindness wrt smoking, morphing is something done
>> by idiots.
>
> Well I though that my signature at the bottom of the post would indicate who
> I am in the context of this group.
>
> As a matter of education to you, the actual change of posting name was
> simply a method of getting around a killfile filter to see if it gets a
> response - and besides, you could accuse anyone using a nickname or munged
> address (such as you have done to prevent spam) as being a morpher.
He indicated he didn't want to read your posts, so you morphed in order
to force them on him. 'morph' means 'change' - those who use a munged
address etc. DON'T change - they use the same address on all posts.
No, you're just being an idiot.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 23:34
"Bob Eager" spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-xyhOQgDTC1TR@rikki.tavi.co.uk...> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:15:44 UTC, "dennis@home"
> killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>> Which part of someone else drinking harms you?
>
> I've lost count. The last drunk that vandalised my car harmed me
> financially.
That is excessive drinking and it is already illegal in case you didn't
know.
It has been illegal for many years, far longer than smoking.
>
> Several people have been murdered by drunks; they were unlikely to have
> done it sober.
That is also excessive drinking.
Smoking harms, there is no need for an excess.
>
> I don't like smoking, but the laws are bloody stupid.
|
| Show full article (0.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 23:37
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:16:54 UTC, "Tanner-'op"
> i......nvalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Regardless of TMH's blindness wrt smoking, morphing is something
>>> done by idiots.
>>
>> Well I though that my signature at the bottom of the post would
>> indicate who I am in the context of this group.
>>
>> As a matter of education to you, the actual change of posting name
>> was simply a method of getting around a killfile filter to see if it
>> gets a response - and besides, you could accuse anyone using a
>> nickname or munged address (such as you have done to prevent spam)
>> as being a morpher.
>
> He indicated he didn't want to read your posts, so you morphed in
> order to force them on him. 'morph' means 'change' - those who use a
> munged address etc. DON'T change - they use the same address on all
> posts. ...
|
| Show full article (3.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bob EagerBob Eager Date: May 31, 2008 23:54
On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:37:30 UTC, "Tanner-'op"
i......nvalid.com> wrote:
>>> As a matter of education to you, the actual change of posting name
>>> was simply a method of getting around a killfile filter to see if it
>>> gets a response - and besides, you could accuse anyone using a
>>> nickname or munged address (such as you have done to prevent spam)
>>> as being a morpher.
>>
>> He indicated he didn't want to read your posts, so you morphed in
>> order to force them on him. 'morph' means 'change' - those who use a
>> munged address etc. DON'T change - they use the same address on all
>> posts.
>
> Not entirely true:
>
> 1 There as been no indication that he did not want to "read my posts".
> He may well be reading them, but perhaps he does not wish to respond - I
> don't know so I try to find out
Jusy leave him to it, then.
|
| Show full article (2.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Cerberus .Cerberus . Date: Jun 1, 2008 00:20
On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:12:57 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
> "Cerberus ." thegatesofhell.com> wrote in message
> news:12ojo7xivxmum.1h86ui5w68uuy.dlg@40tude.net...>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:43:24 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The new law doesn't...
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The Medway HandymanThe Medway Handyman Date: Jun 1, 2008 00:41
dennis@home wrote:
> "Cerberus ." thegatesofhell.com> wrote in message
> news:12ojo7xivxmum.1h86ui5w68uuy.dlg@40tude.net...>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:43:24 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in
>>> some of
>>> the places they shouldn't have done in the first place.
>>> The laws are not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the
>>> air.
>> For good measure, why not bring in a few more laws;
>>
>> Make it illegal to:
>>
>> Have some mental or physical disfigurement
>
> Why that doesn't harm others.
|
| Show full article (0.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: The Medway HandymanThe Medway Handyman Date: Jun 1, 2008 00:46
dennis@home wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4fa8307fc8dave@davenoise.co.uk...>> In article ,
>> dennis@home killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:>>>> I used to be a smoker. I'm not now. I don't particularly defend
>>>> people who want to smoke. It's a stupid thing to do, as I well
>>>> know, but by the same token, I don't vilify them either, which I
>>>> think that the new law *does*.
>>
>>> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in
>>> some of the places they shouldn't have done in the first place. The
>>> laws are not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the air.
>>
>> When they apply the same laws to alcohol - no drinking under any
>> circumstances in a public place or the workplace - and confine it to
>> home only, I'll believe the non smoking laws were for the proper
>> reasons.
>
> Which part of someone else drinking harms you? ...
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
